The Pledge Project - Atheist Ethicist

Anyone else reading the "Pledge Project" series of blog posts by Alonzo Fyfe?

IMHO he's doing a nice job of explaining what is important about the goal of removing "Under God" and "In God we trust" from the Pledge and as a Motto. And giving some good ideas and leading in a good direction for how to address the issue.

They Start here: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-acting-against-anti.html Acting Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry

(snip)
From the very first day that a child enters public school in most cases the child is taught that, at least in the eyes of the government, any person who does not support 'one nation under God' is like a person who does not support 'liberty and justice for all'. These are things that all good Americans support, and those who do not support them are not to be thought of as good Americans.

The reason that those who support these policies the loudest want these lessons taught in the public schools – the reason why they are so emphatic on protecting these policies – is precisely because it helps them to eliminate competition from 'secularists' and 'atheists' for positions of public power and public trust. Through these policies they can keep political power in their own hands. By keeping political power in their own hands they can protect these policies.
(snip)

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-atheist-burka.html The Pledge Project: The Atheist Burka

(snip)
The atheist burka means shrugging and doing nothing while representatives sitting in legislative session deciding on the laws that we must all live under declare atheism to be a philosophy of destruction – free to base their votes on these sentiments without being challenged or condemned.

Ultimately, my point is that I do not care how comfortable you have come to be in the atheist burka. It is time to take it off.

More importantly . . . much more important than you taking off the atheist burka yourself, you should not allow the government to put the atheist burka on the next generation of children.
(snip)

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-projecdt-priorities.html The Pledge Project: Priorities

(snip)
If we look at all of the issues that we could devote time and energy towards – child abuse, global warming, AIDS, malaria, Iraq, illegal drugs, national deficit, medical costs, Bird Flu, stem cell research, and countless other issues – is the issue of 'under God' in the Pledge really that important?

In itself, it is not important – except to the atheist child who might want to grow up to serve in public office, become a judge, join the military and be recognized for the quality of his service and not his religion. It is not important, except for the child whose classmates are being taught by the school to look down on children who do not support 'one nation under God'.

However, this issue relates to the other issues that are important in two ways.

One relationship goes towards asking, "How are we going to address those other concerns, and who gets to decide?" One of the effect of 'under God' in the pledge is that, before a person is allowed to sit among those who will decide on the policies we will use to address these issues, he must first pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God'. Those not willing to offer such a pledge can only sit in the sidelines and, perhaps, offer testimony to those who have reserved the power to actually make decisions for themselves.
(snip)

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-what-to-do.html The Pledge Project: What to Do?

(snip)
Secularists, in the mean time, throw down the legal (not the moral) principle of separation of church and state as if it is some sort of trump card. Merely putting this card on the table is supposed to convince everybody (or at least a substantial majority) that their cause is hopeless and to go home. They have not realized how 40 years of unanswered sectarian propaganda have turn ‘separation of church and state’ into something distasteful in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
(snip)

(snip)
It is time to quit hiding behind the judicial robes (because they will not be there for us to hide behind much longer) and to take the debate to the people themselves in moral terms, not just legal terms.

The moral issue is that ‘under God’ in the Pledge and ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto posted on the money, in government buildings, and (particularly) in school classrooms are part of an attempt to promote hostility against peaceful people based on their religious beliefs and to put nearly insurmountable barriers between them and elected public offices and positions of public trust.
(snip)


http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-offense.html The Pledge Project: Offense

(snip)
When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals releases its decision on the constitutionality of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on the currency and posted in public buildings (particularly in classrooms), we will undoubtedly hear comments about 'atheists' and 'secularists' who are offended by every mention of God in the public square.

My answer:

Mentioning God in the public square does not offend me. Having the government teach children that a person who does not support 'one nation under God' is as anti-American as one who does not support liberty and justice for all offends me.

Even here, I do not consider offense to be a morally relevant factor. We have to ask a further question. Is the offensive statement true or false? If it is true, then the offended party has to suck it up and live with the fact. Whereas if the offensive statement is false, then the problem with the statement is not that it is offensive, but that it is false.
(snip)

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-house-resolution-5872.html The Pledge Project: House Resolution 5872

(snip)
There are two types of wrong associated with this act. The first is a traditional violation of the separation of church and state. The government is promoting religion by acting in such a way that will provide a religious organization with $3.5 million. In this project the government will put up taxpayer dollars to fund the commemorative coins. However, the project is geared to see that the government is paid back before the Boy Scouts see any revenue.

This is the level at which most people who would raise objections to this law will speak against it. It is a government entanglement with a religious organization and, they will declare, we do not want the government supporting atheist organizations. Can we expect the government, in a few years time, to provide the same type of support for Camp Quest – an organization that sends children to a summer camp that is founded on reason rather than myth?

However, I consider this wrong to be rather trivial. It may count as a legal violation, but I do not even know that I can make the case that it is a moral violation outside of the moral obligation to obey the law.

Yet, there is a second level of wrong that is clearly a moral violation independent of any Constitutional or other legal provisions.

The Boy Scouts has as their statement of religious principles:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. . . His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship

So now imagine a House Resolution that supports raising $3.5 million to put a series of signs in American school (because these signs are meant to target young children) that say, "Nobody who doubts the existence of God can be the best kind of citizen. Good citizenship is only possible for those who believe in God."

It is one thing for a religious organization to assert its beliefs that a God exists and that morality requires that followers perform certain types of acts and are prohibited from performing other acts. It is one thing to question the governments sponsorship (or attempts to raise money for) an organization that promotes a particular religious view.

It is quite another for the government to help raise $3.5 million dollars (or any amount of money for that matter) to give to an organization that is actively involved in a campaign to impugns the quality of my citizenship and denigrates and belittles the quality of my contribution to this country.
(snip)


http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-explaining-bigotry.html The Pledge Project: Explaining Bigotry

(snip)
I suggest that when people (particularly children) are taught to pledge allegiance to ‘one nation under God’ that a substantial portion of those children see this as suggesting that a person who does not support ‘one nation under God’ is like a person who does not support ‘liberty and justice for all’. They take a poll that asks them their attitude towards atheists and, quite naturally, they report that their attitude towards atheists is, in fact, very much consistent with their attitude towards people who do not support ‘liberty and justice for all’. That is to say, both groups ‘do not agree at all with my vision of American society’.

We can enter into a chicken-and-egg question here to ask which came first. Do people have an attitude that atheists do not share their vision of American society because the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto (which they are exposed to as very young children) teach them to adopt that attitude? Or is it the case that an attitude that atheists do not share their vision is what causes them to support a Pledge to ‘one nation under God’ and a national motto of ‘In God We Trust’?

Or is this a vicious spiral, where the ‘vision of American society’ as ‘one nation under God’ supports the Pledge, and the Pledge in turn passes along to the next generation a vision of American society as ‘one nation under God’?

I would be inclined to the latter.
(snip)

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-atheists-are.html The Pledge Project: Atheists are Untrustworthy

(snip)
We see an example of this in the words of Ron Lowe, grand historian for the Grand Lodge of Idaho explaining why atheists are not permitted to be Masons.

While one of the few absolute requirements to membership is a belief in one god, religion and politics are not to be discussed within the Lodge. Ron Lowe, grand historian for the Grand Lodge of Idaho, tells why they insist that only deists need apply: "The reason you cannot be a Mason and an atheist is because, in our degree work, we ask that you swear allegiance in the presence of God. The feeling is that if you swear before God, that means something. If you're an atheist, that means nothing. So therefore, your word means nothing, so you have someone whose work cannot be trusted.

This type of statement is simple, naked bigotry. Lowe has just said that I cannot be trusted. He does not know me. He has not worked with me in any way. Yet, he has decided to prejudge me – the very definition of prejudice - by literally accusing me of being untrustworthy while having no information at all about how I live my life.

Furthermore, Lowe has been driven to this attitude by his religion. This is not only a clear instance of bigotry, it is an instance in which religion has been a driving force towards prejudice. In this case, religion has been a cause, not of virtue, but of vice.
(snip)

Perhaps its more likely that we will stop using the pledge before we get rid if 'under God'?

But I digress.

That's some good blogging!

The loyalty oath mania among humans must surely be genetic because it's everywhere.

I'd like to get rid of all pledges. They don't mean anything. If you love a person or a country, you won't harm them -- pledge or no pledge. If you don't really care for something like, say, the Constitution, then you won't defend it -- oath or no oath (just look at Congress).

And that of those that required their citizens to pledge loyalty was Nazi Germany. Any truth to that?

I was speaking more generally about groups demanding protestations of loyalty.

The churches with their creeds. The pundits with the flag-pin obsession. The mindless 'Support the Troops' crap that does anything but support the actual troops.

Even the loyalty enforcers here at DU who will brook no criticism of any (nominal) Democrat because "they're on our side" when, if fact, Pelosi, Reid, HRC and others have shown that they're not really on our side at all.

Figuratively, at least, everyone seems to want to put a gun to your head and demand that you say certain words.

I'm guessing it's a human elaboration of something that chimps do to hold their groups together.

If others want to, I won't stop them. But I quit saying the pledge 40+ yrs ago when I observed that my African American brethren were not getting either liberty or justice.

I will not lie and pretend that America has "liberty and justice for all".

So I treat it the same way I treat a prayer. I stand silently and stare off into space.

I don't recall ever having a problem with that approach.

Resolution Respecting Atheists: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledge-project-resolution-respecting.html

The standing silent approach may be appropriate at times but it sort of falls into the "Atheist Burka" situation described in one of Alonzo's posts that I put a link to, when it's an everyday ritual.

But let's put it to the test and ask our town meetings, state legislators and maybe even US Congress to pass a resolution respecting atheists.

It may sound like the coward's way out, but I've fought that battle and lost.

(When I worked for the DoD I tried to get prayer and religious services out of my work place. That was a disaster. Now I pick my battles and tactics more carefully.)

are a coward. I can understand where you're coming from, I've felt like that mostly but I'm trying to regain a little more proactivity. I know it's unreasonable for me to expect everyone to take the same approach.

For the pledge, and more frequently at sporting events when they do the national anthem (and I'm not sure why there needs to be a national anthem in a sporting event featuring two US-based teams in any case, but I digress) I do the bare polite minimum, standing up but not doing the hand-on-heart thing. Generally this doesn't even attract a look, but then again I live in California, so we have a lot of foreign people, non-pledging religionists and anti-war people who don't do those things, so I'm not exactly breaking new ground.

I really am not comfortable with exercises in nationalism, or with pledging unqualified allegiance to anything, even without the added complication of theistic nonsense.